Finley Hudson v. United States Department of Labor

851 F.2d 215, 1988 WL 68218
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 15, 1988
Docket87-1824
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 851 F.2d 215 (Finley Hudson v. United States Department of Labor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Finley Hudson v. United States Department of Labor, 851 F.2d 215, 1988 WL 68218 (8th Cir. 1988).

Opinions

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Finley Hudson petitions for review of the order of the. United States Department of Labor Benefits Review Board (BRB) denying his claim for black lung benefits. For reversal, petitioner argues that (1) the AU’s finding that petitioner worked no more than seven years in coal mine employment is not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the AU’s decision that exposure to significant environmental contaminants caused petitioner’s pneumoconiosis is not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the ALJ erred in failing to consider petitioner’s claim under 20 C.F.R. Part 718. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with petitioner’s first argument, and, there[216]*216fore, reverse and remand with directions that benefits be paid to petitioner.

The Federal Coal Mine Health & Safety Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 742 (codified as amended at 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (1982)) (Act), establishes health and safety standards for coal mines, as well as a system of compensation for miners who were disabled as a result of pneumoconiosis (black lung disease). In order to qualify for benefits under the Act, a miner must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, total disability due to pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine employment. Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 427, 441 n. 35, 98 L.Ed.2d 450 (1987); Hon v. Director, 699 F.2d 441, 444 (8th Cir.1983) (Hon). To assist in establishing these conditions of eligibility, there are a number of presumptions which may work in a claimant’s favor; those relevant to the case at bar are set forth herein.

On August 30, 1973, petitioner filed a Part B 1 claim for black lung disability benefits which was denied in 1980. Thereafter, petitioner requested a formal hearing before an AU. The hearing was held on October 18, 1983.

At the hearing, petitioner testified that he was born on March 10,1914, and at best had a fourth grade education. In 1927, at the age of thirteen, he began coal mining with his uncle. With the exceptions of brief employment pouring cement and working for an automobile sales company and a canning company, petitioner testified that he continued to mine coal through 1942, but he could only recall approximate dates that he worked in any given mine.

After leaving the coal mines in 1942, petitioner unloaded coal from railroad cars. Thereafter, he was employed as a mechanic for one year and as a crane operator for a construction company for eleven years. He also worked as a press operator and welder, and for a manufacturing company for twenty-two years primarily in the assembly department. Petitioner retired in 1979 and has not worked since then.

Petitioner’s wife testified that she had known petitioner her entire life; they had grown up in the same area. She stated that at the time of their marriage in 1932, petitioner was digging coal; prior to their marriage he was digging coal; and after their marriage, he continued to dig coal. She was present during petitioner’s testimony at the administrative hearing and heard him testify to the numerous mines in which he had worked between 1932 and 1942. She stated that his testimony was approximately correct, and that from the time they married in 1932 until 1942, digging coal was just about all there was to do and mining was the only job petitioner had.

Petitioner introduced into evidence medical records including X-rays and physicians’ reports. The record also contains social security records beginning in 1937, as well as seven affidavits and six written statements from individuals stating that petitioner had worked in numerous coal mines at various times during the period from 1927 to 1943.

The AU found that although petitioner testified he began coal mining in 1927 and continued to 1942, his memory recall was not good. Based on the social security records, the AU credited petitioner with three years of coal mine employment from 1937 to 1943. Assessing the numerous statements and affidavits for probative value and accuracy to recall periods of work activity over the previous forty years, the AU credited petitioner with coal mine employment totaling three years prior to 1937. The AU concluded that petitioner had no more than seven years of mine employment from 1927 to 1943, and, therefore, lacked the requisite ten years needed to trigger the interim presumption under 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(a). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(a), where a claimant is employed for at least ten years (forty quarters) in the nation’s coal mines and satisfies certain [217]*217regulatory criteria to establish that he has pneumoconiosis, he will be presumed to be totally disabled by pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine employment.

As petitioner was deemed to have fewer than ten years of coal mine employment, and because he had filed his claim before the effective date of revised Part 718, the ALJ considered petitioner’s claim only under 20 C.F.R. Part 410.2 The ALJ found that based upon X-ray evidence, petitioner established the existence of pneumoconio-sis under 20 C.F.R. § 410.428(a)(1), and based upon age, education, and work experience, he showed that he was totally disabled pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 410.426. However, the ALJ also found that petitioner did not prove that his pneumoconiosis arose out of his coal mine employment, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 410.416(b). Therefore, the ALJ concluded, petitioner was not entitled to black lung benefits.

On administrative appeal to the BRB, petitioner asserted the same arguments raised herein. The BRB affirmed the AU’s decision, summarily finding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. With regard to the applicability of Part 718, the BRB, citing Collura v. Director, 6 BLR 1-100 (1983) and Muncy v. Wolfe Creek Collieries Coal Co., 3 BLR 1-627 (1981), upheld the ALJ’s application of the regulations at Part 410 and not those at Part 718, for the reason that petitioner had applied for benefits before the effective date of revised Part 718.

The scope of review of an ALJ's decision is limited. Hon, 699 F.2d at 444. If adequately supported by substantial evidence and not inconsistent with the law, the ALJ’s determination is conclusive and it is immaterial that the facts permit the drawing of diverse inferences. Parker v. Director, 590 F.2d 748, 749 (8th Cir.1979) (Parker). The Supreme Court has defined substantial evidence as “ ‘more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
851 F.2d 215, 1988 WL 68218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finley-hudson-v-united-states-department-of-labor-ca8-1988.